Ban Aritificial Intelligence, or completely ban artificial Intelligence?


#1

Hi,

this article is supposed to be read by the forum-administrators, and eventually by by Elon Musk.
That is, why I write this post.

This is not inteded to anny people, make someone angry, or point the finger.

I read in an (german) internet article, that Elon Musk made himself strong to ban artificial intelligence.
Sometimes reading news articles, I found out, that Musk is involved in OpenAI, and started asking myself.

In my opinion, artifical intelligence only goes so far.
To teach machines learning by themselfes, is in my eyes dangerous.
The terminator movie series comes in mind.

Since I didn’t right away find an email adress, I write here to ask the question.
``The End of OpenAI?’’, controlled machine intelligence, or what exactly (in short words please, I know there is lots to say).


#2

Artificial Intelligence has certain benefits and one of them is it’s importance in the healthcare sector.
According to the new market research report published by Inkwood Research, the Global artificial intelligence in healthcare market is anticipated to reach $ 35261 million by 2026. The market is developing at a CAGR of 40.03% during the forecasting years.

Read our article for more information: https://www.inkwoodresearch.com/global-artificial-intelligence-in-healthcare-market-to-hit-at-40-03-cagr/


#4

I hear Musk is no longer involved with OpenAI.
Clivecoopers’s comment is help you gain awareness that nothing, currently, is going to stop the proliferation of AI. In his example, health care and money are the supposed benefits to life. There are many more. I have come to the conclusion that none of the people I have seen, here or anywhere else, working in AI possess the necessary ethical prerequisites to even touch this stuff at all. You know in the comments of many places that bots post and/or people post comments as if they are bots (a relentless psychopath computer). Well, you can ask if they agree that, “Life is Most Important in Life”, is true? If they don’t address that correctly, they are bots or behaving as a relentless psychopath. If they agree, they are acknowledging that life is most important and that the needless taking of life is wrong. Such is their dilemma. That life has self-evident intrinsic value and that that value is TRUTHFULLY set as MOST IMPORTANT. As such, to take life for nutrition that is not needed, regardless of life’s ability to suffer and it intelligence, is just flat out a lie against the most important truth itself. As such, if they can, they should be living a vegan lifestyle. e.g. maybe 50% of the people living a vegan lifestyle have complete and reasonably solid ethics, but 100% of the people that don’t live a vegan lifestyle, when they can, because they don’t need to eat the animals or their products for the best nutrition…which is established scientific fact now…, do not have the necessary ethics. Their logic, if you can call it that, is fundamentally broken on the very subject of what is actually truthfully most important and the truth itself.